Boost Testing :
From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-09 04:43:12
> The fact that the change would likely have gone unnoticed if I hadn't been
> working on some updates for a client and _known_ that the program had
> compiled 26.5 hours ago, and failed 16 hours ago and could chase down
> who'd changed what is rather disturbing.
> We _must_ make some changes in how the regression tests are run (or
> perhaps how the results are analyzed) if we ever hope to have reliable
> stuff going out the door.
> I believe this throws into serious question whether it is reasonable to
> expect to do a release of a new version of boost in the immediate future
> (starting a freeze in 7 days).
I agree, I've just looked into some apparent regex regressions, for example
this one: http://tinyurl.com/4g79r was actually fixed in cvs TWO MONTHS
AGO! Looking at the old style regression logs that Martin is still posting
here: http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/cs-Linux.html shows that
test is actually passing on his system, but the MetaCom postprocessing is
showing hopelessly out of date results.
Sorry guys, but something is broken somewhere, and has been for a while by
the looks of it, it's currently pretty pointless trying to fix any
regressions until we know that any changes will actually be reflected in the